Mayflower District Court
#brendapopplewell-v-mayflower-law-enforcement-training-institute
This is the start of #brendapopplewell-v-mayflower-law-enforcement-training-institute channel.
who 2024-09-25 09:26 p.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
BrendaPopplewell v. Mayflower Law Enforcement Training Institute
Trial Type: Civil
Judge Assigned: Judge GrandpaGobies - Courtroom 000
Complaint Attached: Attached
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
```
...
---
---
```
...
Labels
Civilwho 2024-09-25 09:26 p.m.
CV-0038-24 BrendaPopplewell v. Mayflower Law Enforcement Training Institute
who 2024-09-25 09:26 p.m.
Plaintiff BrendaPopplewell not in server
krabzatonin 2024-09-25 10:09 p.m.@capsulesalesman Has submitted their NoA (attached to Trello) and has been added.
-# Clerk
-# Clerk
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:09 p.m.@who please rule on the emergency motion as soon as possible
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:09 p.m.
arbitration is complete w/ DOJ(edited)
who 2024-09-25 10:30 p.m.
A hearing can be held on the TRO @capsulesalesman
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:30 p.m.
yippee!
who 2024-09-25 10:30 p.m.
Provide the court the denial of the Plaintiff's application to Class 1 of the LETI
who 2024-09-25 10:30 p.m.
So that it can be reviewed as well
who 2024-09-25 10:32 p.m.
And also provide the arbitration order from the DOJ
whoProvide the court the denial of the Plaintiff's application to Class 1 of the LETI
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:33 p.m.
Applications open on the 27th.
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:33 p.m.
There an exists imminent harm posed by the regulation in question.(edited)
who 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m.
The plaintiff alleges in the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order that they were "refused to allow her to apply for enrollment as a result of her chronic medical conditions."
who 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m.
Can I see the denial @capsulesalesman
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m. 
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m.
Please see the screenshot inside the screenshot
who 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m.
Ok that is the denial of the Department of Justice to grant an order in arbitration
who 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m.
Can I see the original denial
who 2024-09-25 10:35 p.m.
from the LETI
who 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
of registerring for the class
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
Yes. I am processing your questions in the order you give them.
who 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
Ok
who 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
No problem
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
Please give me a second. I need to relay!
who 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
Ok
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.is stressed
who 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m.
It's fine take your time
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:36 p.m. 
who 2024-09-25 10:37 p.m.
Is there anything that leads the Plaintiff to believe that the policy will be applied to them other than a hypothetical possible denial
whoIs there anything that leads the Plaintiff to believe that the policy will be applied to them other than a hypothetical possible denial
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:41 p.m.
Uh, your language doesn’t do this justice. There is a strong reason to believe that if the Plaintiff applies, she will be denied acceptance into Class 1. “[P]ossible denial” isn’t worded right…maybe “likely denial” is better.
The policy creates an illegal requirement that, because of my client’s medical disability, she clearly cannot fulfill. Further, the policy says that people who cannot fulfill its requirements will, without exception, be denied.(edited)
The policy creates an illegal requirement that, because of my client’s medical disability, she clearly cannot fulfill. Further, the policy says that people who cannot fulfill its requirements will, without exception, be denied.(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:42 p.m.
These facts are sufficient to establish imminent harm. I’m not at my PC rn but I can get the case law on the subject for you later if you aren't familiar with it already.(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:42 p.m. 
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:44 p.m. 
Notableants 2024-09-25 10:46 p.m.
Not that it means much, but I know from experience that my client is NOT a positive person. 
who 2024-09-25 10:55 p.m.
I'm not convinced there is imminent injury to be suffered by the Plaintiff absent some form of confidence that the Plaintiff will almost certainly be denied under the policy and I don't think any claims alleged put forward a concept that the policy is designed to discriminate in a manner that will result in denial of the Plaintiff's application.
I'm also not convinced that any medical condition suffered by the Plaintiff will translate to denial by the LETI, and am not convinced that the LETI will enforce its policies in a way that incidentally discriminate against the Plaintiff absent some form of action or statement they have taken or made already. The government has the opportunity to enforce its policies before it can be alleged that there is a possibility of incidental discrimination.
The state does have an interest in ensuring its peace officers possess a "positive personality and attitude" if the lack of that quality has been determined to be a reason for "disqualification" under Art. VIII, Section 2 and 3 of the Constitution. These sections grant the LETI and Senate a wide power to regulate the grant of certificates to peace officers, and for the reasons of disqualification of certificate seekers and holders.
The Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is denied and a full written opinion will be supplied at some future time.
I will allow the Plaintiff to refile the motion with a more compelling argument to believe that the policy will certainly and incidentally effect the Plaintiff's application.
I'm also not convinced that any medical condition suffered by the Plaintiff will translate to denial by the LETI, and am not convinced that the LETI will enforce its policies in a way that incidentally discriminate against the Plaintiff absent some form of action or statement they have taken or made already. The government has the opportunity to enforce its policies before it can be alleged that there is a possibility of incidental discrimination.
The state does have an interest in ensuring its peace officers possess a "positive personality and attitude" if the lack of that quality has been determined to be a reason for "disqualification" under Art. VIII, Section 2 and 3 of the Constitution. These sections grant the LETI and Senate a wide power to regulate the grant of certificates to peace officers, and for the reasons of disqualification of certificate seekers and holders.
The Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is denied and a full written opinion will be supplied at some future time.
I will allow the Plaintiff to refile the motion with a more compelling argument to believe that the policy will certainly and incidentally effect the Plaintiff's application.
who 2024-09-25 10:57 p.m.
And if there is an actual denial of the application, in a manner that leads to the most likely cause being the "positive personality and attitude" policy, then I also invite the Plaintiff to refile the Temporary Restraining Order.
Notableants 2024-09-25 11:02 p.m. 
Notableants 2024-09-25 11:03 p.m.
My client has a negative attitude. Indeed, this Court has found that fact when it banned her from this Discord room as a result of it. There is little question that, considering the “no exceptions” statement from the LETI, my client will be rejected once applications are processed.
Notableants 2024-09-25 11:05 p.m.
In fact, my client intends not to try to correct her behavior. She will act with a negative attitude throughout the LETI application process and beyond.
She should not have to change who she is because the government won’t accept her as is.(edited)
She should not have to change who she is because the government won’t accept her as is.(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-25 11:06 p.m.
If we amend the Complaint/Motion to make her intention to violate the regulation clear (as the precedents below suggest she should do), would you reconsider that aspect of your ruling?(edited)
NotableantsIf we amend the Complaint/Motion to make her intention to violate the regulation clear (as the precedents below suggest she should do), would you reconsider that aspect of your rul...(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-25 11:06 p.m.@who
Notableants 2024-09-26 10:52 p.m.@who
Kacy Duke — Today at 9:51 PM
The plaintiff hereby moves for a preliminary injunction against the defendant and incorporates her previous memorandum of law in support of this motion.
The amended complaint alleges "an intention to engage in a course of conduct" prohibited by the requirement and plaintiff therefore fulfills the imminent harm requirement as explicated by, e.g., Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979).
Kacy Duke — Today at 9:51 PM
The plaintiff hereby moves for a preliminary injunction against the defendant and incorporates her previous memorandum of law in support of this motion.
The amended complaint alleges "an intention to engage in a course of conduct" prohibited by the requirement and plaintiff therefore fulfills the imminent harm requirement as explicated by, e.g., Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979).
whoI'm not convinced there is imminent injury to be suffered by the Plaintiff absent some form of confidence that the Plaintiff will almost certainly be denied under the policy and ...
Notableants 2024-09-26 11:32 p.m.
"This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops." Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , 593 U.S. 522, 551 (2021) (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:22 a.m.@who
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:23 a.m. BrendaPopplewell v. Mayflower Law Enforcement Training Institute
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
---
Filing Attorney:
Time Filed: 09/27/2024
Docket
Sept. 27 2024: [Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.](https://d...
---
Filing Attorney:
Filer: BrendaPopplewell
SC Bar Membership: No. N/A
Discord: kacywastaken
Filed on behalf of Petitioner
Time Filed: 09/27/2024
Comments
1Labels
Appeal, Discretionary Review, Case
justind20 2024-09-27 01:37 a.m.@who Justind20, State Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Mayflower Law Enforcement Training Institute.
@capsulesalesman Could you please clarify the plaintiff's representative status? Your most recent filing shows the plaintiff herself filing the emergency motion and "appearing pro se" with a suspended BAR license. It is improper for a plaintiff to have hybrid representation (AKA representation by counsel AND self-representation).(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:37 a.m.
why is that improper
justind20 2024-09-27 01:44 a.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation does not simultaneously include the right to active assistance of counsel. (McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984))
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:45 a.m.
and yet no rule of this court bars it
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:45 a.m. 
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:45 a.m.
standby counsel or advisory counsel is very much so a common thing, even if not constitutionally protected
justind20 2024-09-27 01:46 a.m.
there is a major difference between standby counsel and active counsel
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:46 a.m.
even if that were the case...i think you are mistaking me being active for me relaying my defendant's interests given her ban(edited)
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:47 a.m.
the court has already permitted this
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:47 a.m.
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:48 a.m.
very typical of the government to try to defeat an aggrieved citizen's case on a technicality instead of its merits
justind20 2024-09-27 01:49 a.m.
i'm trying to get clarity about your status as counsel
justind20 2024-09-27 01:49 a.m.
when brenda's name is on the filings
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:49 a.m.
ive filed a NOA that should clarify that just fine
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:49 a.m.
i need not review and sign everything that a licensed co counselor submit(edited)
justind20 2024-09-27 01:49 a.m.
so you are appreaing on behalf of brenda while she is also appearing pro se
justind20 2024-09-27 01:49 a.m.
she isn't licensed
justind20 2024-09-27 01:50 a.m.
her bar is suspended
Kezzera 2024-09-27 01:50 a.m.
hey gang i gotta take transcript here soon i mark where im recording transcript from thanks gang :3(edited)
justind20so you are appreaing on behalf of brenda while she is also appearing pro se
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:50 a.m.
sure
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:50 a.m.
again, no rule prevents that
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:50 a.m.
& it is in the interest of this court to allow it
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:51 a.m.
this court has a duty to ensure that "substantial justice is done between the litigants"
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:51 a.m.
which is a little hard to do if the plaintiff is not allowed to have an attorney present to submit her filings while she cannot
justind20 2024-09-27 01:53 a.m.
if anything brenda should not be appearing pro se through her filings and you should be filing on her behalf
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:53 a.m.
what rule says that is the proper course of action
justind20 2024-09-27 01:54 a.m.
i can tell you nothing about this current arrangement is proper if you look at precedent, the general consensus where this has come us was that hybrid representation is not permitted
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:55 a.m.
you're mistaken. the consensus is that the constitution does not confer a right to hybrid representation.
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:55 a.m.
there is a wide gap between that fact and the fact that this court does not have a rule barring the "current arrangement"
justind20 2024-09-27 01:56 a.m.
so you believe it would be wise for this court to allow an arrangement that opens the door for every individual appearing pro se to have active counsel as well?
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:56 a.m.
sure
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:57 a.m.
i see no reason why it's different than allowing multiple counselors on one case
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:57 a.m.
especially given my client's legal background and current predicament with the ban and all
Notableants 2024-09-27 01:58 a.m.
again, i fail to see how it furthers the goal of this court to prevent the current arrangement
Notableants 2024-09-27 02:05 a.m. 
shah 2024-09-27 05:22 p.m.@Brenda
justind20so you believe it would be wise for this court to allow an arrangement that opens the door for every individual appearing pro se to have active counsel as well?
who 2024-09-27 10:17 p.m.
Brenda was banned from the Discord, counsel was instructed to be appointed so the Plaintiff could communicate with the court.
who 2024-09-27 10:17 p.m.
Future filings must be in the name of the Attorney of Record
Notableants 2024-09-27 10:59 p.m.@Brenda
whoFuture filings must be in the name of the Attorney of Record
Notableants 2024-09-27 10:59 p.m.
meh she is here now I withdraw
Notableants 2024-09-27 10:59 p.m.
she will represent pro se she says
who 2024-09-27 11:51 p.m.
This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction founded in the unripe nature of the Plaintiff's claims.
88.28 KB
who 2024-09-27 11:51 p.m.@Brenda
who 2024-09-27 11:51 p.m.@justind20
Brenda 2024-09-28 12:00 a.m.@who We ask the court to stay its dismissal order for 24 hours.
Brenda 2024-09-28 12:00 a.m.
The Supreme Court of Mayflower received a PWHC and will (likely) rule to hear this case.(edited)
who 2024-09-28 12:01 a.m.
denied
who 2024-09-28 12:01 a.m.
The Supreme Court can do whatever they want
who 2024-09-28 12:01 a.m.
Including issuing their own stay
Brenda 2024-09-28 02:54 p.m.
SCOM has granted review of this case. I ask the case channel remain open for administrative purposes.
who 2024-09-30 03:16 a.m.
Ok
shah 2024-10-09 09:19 a.m.
Cert petition was denied. Archiving
@who @Brenda
totoro987123 2024-10-17 08:56 p.m.
[Order List for Thursday, October 17, 2024.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u52iExPBK4GXh1KCzm0kWhLaGZ0TADTx/view)(edited)
Kezzera 2024-10-18 10:14 a.m.
Transcript producing
Kezzera 2024-10-18 11:26 a.m.
my hans hurt.. it is done
Kezzera 2024-10-18 11:26 a.m.
--- FROM HEREAFTER, NO MESSAGES ARE TRANSCRIBED ---
totoro987123 2024-11-24 07:47 p.m.
No. 01-05, BrendaPopplewell v. Mayflower Law Enforcement Training Institute
[Judgment AFFIRMED. Totoro, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Cabot, J., filed a concurring opinion.](https://scom.ro-state.com/api/file/6f430711-f80a-455c-9f71-9504279fc4ff)
[Judgment AFFIRMED. Totoro, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Cabot, J., filed a concurring opinion.](https://scom.ro-state.com/api/file/6f430711-f80a-455c-9f71-9504279fc4ff)
Exported 104 messages